Now that the Constitution is all the rage and in vogue, please allow me dear readers, to throw my worthless two cents into the mix. And may I add and assure you dear readers that in this day and age of the excessive, statist, liberal progressive, big government devaluation and debasement of our currency; especially so with its current round of devaluation, that my worthless two cents, in fact and indeed, any two cents at all, is now barely worth a fraction of a cent, let alone two whole cents.
Nevertheless, this article is not about the arcane minutiae of currency manipulation or “the Fed” or monetary policy et al, ad nauseam. Which admittedly makes my foregoing comments rather snide, smarmy and gratuitously flippant and facetious and sarcastic too — well, guilty as charged. Just couldn’t help myself cause I just love to annoy the hell out of the editors here. (Some of whom I must surmise will respond with a very stern and severe admonition “we are not amused.”)
Rather, this article is about the Constitution and in particular, Article I, Section 10 and its seeming significance and importance in the Arizona controversy surrounding SB 1070, Judge Bolton’s ruling on it, and the Obama administration’s consequent demonization of the state of Arizona; and even more incredibly, of President Obama and Attorney General Holder, of their waging a legalistic and litigious “war” against that state. I think one proper, apt and accurate word for this is “unprecedented” while yet another might be reasonably offered as simply “lunatic.” But the phrase “it’s so liberal-progressive, intellectually, academically and professorially f…ing smart, it’s f…ing stupid” might also suffice as well.
But why now, why I am addressing this issue at this point in time? Hasn’t it already been decided — sort of? Well yes, but just last night I was perusing the Constitution; I do that from time to time you know (which proves without any doubt whatsoever, reasonable or otherwise, what a true intellectual weirdo/geek/nerd/dweeb/idiot/moron I truly am). At any rate, when I came across Section 10 of Article I, I saw something which aroused and greatly piqued my curiosity (in fact, it hit me like a veritable lightning bolt/ton of bricks).
Eureka I said to myself, because if one goes to its last and third paragraph, one will see that it clearly states:
“That no State shall, without the Consent of Congress,” blah-blah-blah-blah, “…engage in War, UNLESS actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Bingo!!! Game over. Turn out the lights, the party’s over. Time to go home and for the Obama administration and the courts to cede the point that they are woefully mistaken and wrong on this one. How so? Allow me dear readers to “splain” myself.
Well, first off, I must confess and state the following proviso, that I am not a legal scholar nor constitutional expert nor, shoot man, I ain’t even a lawyer (which means to say I still possess both a soul and a conscience). Thank God.
But I suppose many of you might ask, especially those of you of a liberal-progressive bent and of a true-believer, leftist religious persuasion; “where the hell do you get off bloviating and spouting off about the Constitution? What are your (meaning here my) credentials?” Well, I guess my only qualifying credential is – well, in this regard, please allow me dear readers to commit and perpetrate a little schoolboy Latin herein.
Cogito ergo ius mihi dicere est.
Literally a word for word translation: I think (cognitively, analytically, critically, rationally, empirically, scientifically, logically and compassionately, and with a modicum of articulation, which means to say, I don’t think like a liberal or some such other commie-lib, pinko lefty); therefore (ergo) I possess the right (ius mihi…est, which is a grammatical construction called the “dative of possession”) to speak out (dicere, which is a complimentary infinitive to the latter). Simply stated without all of my pedantic bullshit; I think (rationally, logically, etc., etc.), therefore I possess the right to speak out. I maintain that should be sufficient enough credentials in my behalf, in and of itself.
Soooo, if I’m not mistaken, Article I, Section 10 clearly applies to the state of Arizona and its efforts to defend itself and protect the public safety of its citizenry: from what is a war, which of course is itself a moot point which certainly is open to interpretation and reasonable debate on both sides of the issue; however what is not open to such sophistic and casuistic, mind numbing debate, is the undeniable fact of its being a clear “invasion” certainly posed by virtue of the steady flood of illegal aliens across its borders and the infiltration and steady flow of drug cartel “narco’ traffickers and of other assorted criminals as well. This fact absolutely is and absolutely constitutes and defines what an “invasion” truly is, by both definition and logical necessity.
Well if this is a war, declared or otherwise, against the state of Arizona; or likewise, is an equivalent analog, tantamount to an invasion of the state of Arizona; then Arizona has every right to defend its borders and protect its citizenry from this undeclared war and or from this actual invasion. And furthermore to do so whether through the deployment of its National Guard or its other public safety entities and infrastructure, including the arming of its citizenry and their deputization for such a task, or through the enactment of statutory laws such as SB 1070 — is thoroughly within Arizona’s authority and enumerated, constitutional powers and sovereign responsibilities, again as enumerated in Article I, Section 10.
Call it a “waiver” or an “exception clause” or whatever the exact and proper legalistic term is. (This is where my ignorance of the legal profession evidently is rather glaring and stark, but in the words of Vice-president Gaff-eria, BFD and and also in one of my own favorite acronyms, SFW, which translates into “so f…ing what.”) As I see this issue and as the Constitution so very clearly and wisely implies, this is simply and solely a matter of “common sense.”
But again, what the hell do I know? Cause I’m just a lowly dumbass, former Marine, combat-wounded veteran of the Vietnam War and degree holder (and again, with just a lowly BA) in the Classics who also studied in both Paris and Rome as an undergrad. Both of which latter facts I suppose, nay, I know for an absolute certainty, make me eminently and certifiably stupid. Granted and agreed.
But what do you, dear readers, think about this argument? Does the Constitution and this “exception clause” in particular, apply in this matter or not? Clearly I say that it does.
Many of course, on the opposite side of this issue to mine will cite the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI, Clause 2; the Doctrine of Federal pre-emption; and I suppose also, if they really want to go deep into the weeds, they will also cite the most recent Supreme Court decision in Altria Group v. Good (2008); to counter, negate, obviate and contradict my argumenta. I am not going to fight over nor quibble nor argue the finer points of its constitutionality; whether Federal Law always has “supremacy” over and “trumps” state law.
For to be quite brutally honest, that is just a little too arcane, esoteric and deeply profound for my understanding and former Marine, little, microscopic, pea brain to begin to fathom let alone fully fathom. In fact, at this juncture my eyes are beginning to glazeth over and my ears to stoppeth uppeth and my head to spineth and revolveth out of control too.
Nevertheless, (you really didn’t expect me to shut up and or cease and desist, did you?) I of course still persist and maintain that Article I, Section 10 is a reasonable, common sense exception to the “Supremacy Clause” et al. In this regard, there is an earlier ruling, Reilly 533 US, which states “the historic police powers of the States [a]re not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”
Well, where is “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress” in this matter? I maintain Justice Holder and the Justice Department has neither stated nor reasonably proven such – therefore the state of Arizona in its SB 1070 is perfectly within its constitutional right specifically by virtue of the “exception clause” in Article I, Section 10.
How’s that for legalistic mumbo-jumbo and arcane, thoroughly opaque and undecipherable “legalese?” But isn’t that the point of all this, isn’t that what all this has come down to? For you see, dear readers, this administration appears to be the most litigious in our nation’s history. Instead of dealing with issues on their individual, sui generis merits, this administration’s core ethos, mindset and modus operandi is first and foremost to send in the lawyers, then the clowns. Or vice versa? But actually it really doesn’t matter who goes first, because they’re both essentially one and the same.
And in the meantime our sovereignty and borders are daily, massively violated and the public safety of our citizenry endangered. Well, if the litigious clowns, buffoons, mental midgets and intellectual lilliputians of this administration would rather sue and wage legal warfare against states like Arizona; and argue and debate endlessly on how many millions upon millions of constitutional briefs can dance upon the head of a pin – then again, Arizona not only has a constitutional right to act, but it also has a mandate and a moral imperative to do so as well.
In regard to the recent events in Arizona —a brief afterword:
Speaking of bad timing, boy did I walk into this one blind as a bat! Nevertheless, truth be known, I was thoroughly unaware of the events in Arizona on Saturday 8 Jan. 2011. Indeed this surely and truly is a case of the unusual, starkly uncommon and most sinister of events; overtaking, overwhelming and overpowering that which is common, most ordinary and uneventful.
For I did not learn of these events until I had finished this article on Sunday morning at roughly 7:00 a.m., oh alright, to be absolutely precise at 7:26 a.m., but who’s counting anyway? I only learned of what happened when I turned on the television to watch C-Span and then viewed both television and the internet for several hours.
Well, needless to say, my heart goes out to congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her family, and to all those who were so egregiously injured, but above all else, to all those who were so mindlessly and tragically taken from us. But we must all make every effort to understand that this event was a human tragedy which is so very common to the human condition. That this tragedy was simply part and parcel of the natural rhythm and cycle of life and death itself – as so very tragic and so very difficult as that process for us survivors of it is to fathom.
But furthermore, we must not blame God nor must we otherwise demagogue this issue, by turning and making this into a crass and demagogic, political “piñata.” Nevertheless, I will be the first to cite Aristotle, (rest assured, dear readers, I will spare you the original Greek) who said in the first chapter of the “Politics” that “Man (meaning mankind or humankind generically) by his very own nature is a political animal.” But unfortunately that seems to be precisely what the liberal left is attempting to do, for the temptation to utterly demagogue this issue is just too overwhelming and tempting for them to refrain from and or avoid.
Please, let us not distort the heinous and vicious actions of this apparently delusional and profoundly psychotic young man, into a further intellectual tragedy and farce. Or as Marx himself intimated, to reduce and define this into farce. E.g, “History first appears as tragedy and then as farce.”
So therefore, in the name of intellectual inquiry and rigorous discourse and disinterested objectivity, I have, after much Hamletesque “to-ing” and “fro-ing” decided to submit this article for publication. I only hope this action of mine will offend no one, but even if it does, I still feel compelled to submit it, again, solely in the name of intellectual inquiry, rigorous discourse and disinterested objectivity.